Well basially I have to write an 400 word essay on the Corrib gas field controversy. One of the main things the teacher said was "Explain in Bullet points the type of Debates". Here is my essay : THE CORRIB What is gas and how do we get it? A natural gas is a natural fossil fuel like oil or coal. Gas is found underground and under the ocean floor. It is made by the rotten of plants. Pressure and heat from the shifting surface of the earth filled the resulting cracks and crevices with oil and natural gas. We drill holes in the ground with machines called oil or gas rigs. They are like big platforms in the sea. The gas that comes out of the ground/sea is dirty and needs to be cleaned up. In order to transport the gas it needs to be pressurised to a very high pressure. Shell is the company that got the licence to drill for this gas in the corrib field from our government. They have decided that it is better to refine the gas in a plant ashore. After the gas is cleaned up, it is put into the national grid. Natural gas is extremely flammable and explosive. Where is our gas going and why is it running out? We use gas everyday in factories, power stations and at home. For example, washing clothes, heating the house, cooking, etc. Gas is a limited resource and is running out because people use gas faster than it is created. The controversy There have been a lot of arguments about this subject. Shell says that it is far to expensive and dangerous for people and the environment to refine the gas in the Atlantic ocean. They have decided to only produce and pressurise the gas at sea and pipe the gas to the refinery on shore. The local people do not like the idea of having this high pressure gas line close to their property. Shell went through the full planning process and environmental and risk assessment procedure. The people opposing this project do not agree that all these procedures were followed properly and say that Shell did not consult with them. There are many debates caused by this. ● Environmental impact ● Safety ● Cost ● Employment ● Protesting ● Damage to property of land owner And a few more. I can understand the concerns of both sides. I agree with Shell wanting to move the gas rig to land, because it obviously cannot pay for itself if they build it off shore. They are a commercial company after all and they have to make profit. If it wasn’t for Shell the gas would not be exploited gas, and we would be totally dependant on gas coming from another country like the North Sea or Russia and this is very expensive. On the other hand, the gas is very flammable and explosive, and if an accident occurred , it would happen on someone else’s property, then Shell would have to pay billions to pay the in compensation, not to mention how the people would feel, if their property was damaged or the people were injured. Wherever they want to build it, it will always be in someone’s back yard, so t least 1 person will complain. There is a protest going on at the moment, because people are still objecting to the work that is going on. People are always afraid of changes. For instance, when the trains first came out, they travelled at 20 miles p/h. People were afraid that the shock of the trains going so fast would kill the cows. This didn’t happen….. I have some points there on what subject to debate them on, but I need ten facts for, and ten facts against. I can only think of a few. Any help? Or suggestions on how I can improve this? Thanks.